IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Delay in disposal of appeal cannot be attributed only to Judiciary. There are certain factors which are beyond control to judiciary for which delayed disposal has occasioned.
(2) Right of accused to fair representation – If a situation arises where privately engaged Counsel do not come forward or their assistance cannot be obtained without considerable delay and expenses, then Presiding Judge of court, in seisin of case, may appoint a State Defence Counsel or Amicus Curiae.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J.—In this appeal, the sole appellant-Habil Sindhu had assailed his conviction under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as ‘Penal Code’ for brevity by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada in S.T. Case No.40/163 of 2003. As per the judgment dated 30.06.2005, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code.

2. The learned Amicus Curiae has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds pertaining to appreciation of evidence. However, we are inclined to take into consideration the last submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae relying upon the reported case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 20 SCC 196. He would submit that in this case the appellant was not provided with effective free legal services by the State Defence Counsel (SDC). The learned counsel for the appellant argued that although the learned trial Judge engaged a SDC to defend him, but such counsel was engaged without assessing his ability to defend the accused, who was charged with murder of three persons. Moreover, it is also argued that the counsel was engaged on the date of trial when the private defence counsel appearing for the appellant did not appear. Though on date of trial, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, on the next two dates, majority of the material witnesses were examined.

Before passing any comment on the issues at hand, we would like to rely upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). After taking to consideration the plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court, the following principles were recognized:

“20.1. Article 39-A inserted by the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, effected in the year 1977, provides for free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The statutory regime put in place including the enactment of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is designed to achieve the mandate of Article 39-A.

20.2. It has been well accepted that right to free legal services is an essential ingredient of ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the right guaranteed by Article 21. The extract from the decision of this Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Shekikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : (as quoted in the decision in Mohd. Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 408) emphasises that the object of criminal trial is to search for the truth and the trial is not about over technicalities and must be conducted in such manner as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

20.3. Even before insertion of Article 39-A in the Constitution, the decision of this Court in Bashira v. State of U.P., (1969) 1 SCR 32 put the matter beyond any doubt and held that the time granted to the Amicus Curiae in that matter to prepare for the defense was completely insufficient and that the award of sentence of death resulted in deprivation of the life of the accused and was in breach of the procedure established by law.

20.4. The portion quoted in Bashira v. State of U.P., (supra) from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court authored by Subba Rao, J., the then Chief Justice of the High Court, stated with clarity that mere formal compliance of the rule under which sufficient time had to be given to the counsel to prepare for the defence would not carry out the object underlying the rule. It was further stated that the opportunity must be real where the counsel is given sufficient and adequate time to prepare.

20.5. In Bashira v. State of U.P., (supra) as well as in Ambadas Laxman Shinde v. State of M